If the guy we don't like wins, ignore the results. They've been trying to do that with the presidency in January 2009.

It's like that Simpsons episode where they sing "just don't look".

Pretty good one. Treehouse of horror.

Sanduskyed In The Shower: I couldn't care less about his batshiat insane economic policies, I just want to see someone throw the system on its head.

I like the cut of your jib.

good. There is no reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should pick our leaders.

We should have a 6 week campaign (publically funded), a nation wide primary and then another 6 week campaign between the winners of that primary.

Voting should be mandatory and come with a fine if you do not vote. There should be a "none of the above" choice, and if "None of the above" ever wins, there should be a new election with different candidates.

Of course, this can't all happen. But the only people who disagree are the people who benefit of the broken system.

eddyatwork: Oh God I hope RON PAUL wins it just so you all have to kiss my butt and admit I was right all these years!

It will be worth it to see Republicans have to vote for an anti-war, pro drug legalization candidate. Now that's entertainment!

Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over whoM to support

It's the object of a prepositional phrase! Whom, not who, you tards!!

Now that that's out of my system...

God, I hope to hell he wins Iowa, just to throw everyone in a complete tizzy. That'll be almost as much fun as the Palin/Bachmann ticket we were all hoping for.

/Not that I want a Paul ticket
//Just let him have a few caucuses. That'll be enough derpentainment for a while.

So? Didn't Huckabee win Iowa last time?

The primary system ought to be a lottery, or everyone should vote at the same time. Enough with this ridiculous system. Two white as hell states do not represent the nation.

brigid_fitch: God, I hope to hell he wins Iowa, just to throw everyone in a complete tizzy

I don't think anything will happen. The media has already said they intend to ignore a Paul victory.

GAT_00: The primary system ought to be a lottery, or everyone should vote at the same time. Enough with this ridiculous system.

The primary should be done privately, using private money. There's no reason why govt money is used to chose the candidate of a private corporation, nor any reason why they should regulate it.

If Paul wins Iowa and manages to hang on to a close second in NH, Romney will be done for. With Newt guaranteed to win most every southern state and Paul gaining more funds, Romney will have no choice but to fight through them both.

And, if the party brass step in and torpedo both of them for Romney, a brokered and/or nasty convention is a sure thing.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: With Newt guaranteed to win most every southern state

Newt Gingrich has NO DESIRE to be president. He doesn't want the nomination, he doesn't want to fight Obama, he doesn't want Nancy Pelosi to unleash the 1000 pages she has on his ethics issues, and he sure as HELL does not want deal with the problems of this country.

Newt is on a book tour. Even he is shocked and confused by the popularity of said book tour.

what_now: Grand_Moff_Joseph: With Newt guaranteed to win most every southern state

Newt Gingrich has NO DESIRE to be president. He doesn't want the nomination, he doesn't want to fight Obama, he doesn't want Nancy Pelosi to unleash the 1000 pages she has on his ethics issues, and he sure as HELL does not want deal with the problems of this country.

Newt is on a book tour. Even he is shocked and confused by the popularity of said book tour.

That's probably true, but a majority of southern states will still give him their primary delegates. The more states "not romney" wins, the weaker he becomes.

Just a few questions about the thinking behind this:

It would have a very damaging effect because I don't think he could be elected president and both Iowa and national Republicans wouldn't think he represents the will of voters

Wait... so if he wins the election it's not a representation of the will of the voters?

Paul could win here on January 3rd with the help of Democrats and independents who change their registration to support the libertarian-leaning Texas congressman

Is there any evidence that this is happening? And if so, is it on a scale large enough to matter?

I don't think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion help

"perverting" in this case meaning running a campaign and winning over voters?

If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.

If Romney can't get enough votes to beat Paul in Iowa, what would cause you to think he could get enough votes to beat Obama on the national level?

timujin: Is there any evidence that this is happening? And if so, is it on a scale large enough to matter?

I've heard a few Farkers mention doing it for 2008, because they really didn't want the Candidate X to win the nomination, but as you say, I really don't think enough are doing it to matter. Regardless, these people will be blamed for the outcome of the primaries.

GAT_00: I don't think anything will happen. The media has already said they intend to ignore a Paul victory.

You're right, they will ignore a Paul Iowa win because it's a Caucus state, which makes it easy for Pauls rabbid supporters to skew the vote. It's why he constantly does better in Caucus states than he does in Primary states. If you look at the Primary States he generally running fourth or fifth and no where near the front of the pack. He's getting play now because of Iowa, but generally even the GOP can see through the thin coat of saneness to the real crazy.

A Dark Evil Omen: One does not simply RON PAUL into Mordor.

RON PAUL does not simply RON PAUL into RON PAUL.



But seriously, doesn't support for RON PAUL basically imply that you would like to abolish social programs, allowing people to starve/freeze/die from disease/whatever? I mean, that's his whole thing. Get the government out of the way. If the private sector doesn't step up to provide charity, there would be mass die-offs all over the country (and possibly the world), and the air and water would immediately be filled with toxins from major polluters.

How are these good outcomes? How is this something that people support??? Look, just cause the guy says we shouldn't have pre-emptive war or a war on drugs doesn't make up for his support of mass starvation and death.

Unless somehow Ron Paul's ideas lead to a utopia where no one starves. I don't see it..

CanisNoir: but generally even the GOP can see through the thin coat of saneness to the real crazy.

Which is why of course Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Trump and Palin all had absolutely zero support this election cycle.

That's the funniest argument i've ever seen.

CapnBlues: Unless somehow Ron Paul's ideas lead to a utopia where no one starves. I don't see it..

In Ron Paul's mind, everyone is deeply religious, therefore charities are not an issue.

It's unfortunate it does not look anything like reality, though.

RON PAUL must win.

I am now rooting for a creationist to win something.

I never thought this day would come.

RON PAUL!

imontheinternet: Obama's '08 win started in Iowa. Everyone still thought the primary was Hillary's until he took the Iowa caucus. She won New Hampshire shortly after, but the damage was already done. Obama was now seen as a serious contender.

I'm no Obama supporter, but even *I* would not put him on the same level as Ron Paul. Obama had a lot of things going for him that Paul doesn't, not the least of which was allowing people to feel like they would be making history by voting for the first black president.

GAT_00: Which is why of course Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Trump and Palin all had absolutely zero support this election cycle.

Well you're definition of "crazy" where the GOP is concerned has, in my estimation, become overblown due to rhetoric. If you notice, however, the only person you mentioned that has garnered any kind of major support at this time, outside of Iowa, is Gingrich and you and I would probably disagree on his level of sanity.

nosferatublue: I predict that if Ron Paul wins in Iowa, he continue winning...

...until he takes an arrow in the knee.

Chuck Testa?

CanisNoir: GAT_00: Which is why of course Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Trump and Palin all had absolutely zero support this election cycle.

Well you're definition of "crazy" where the GOP is concerned has, in my estimation, become overblown due to rhetoric. If you notice, however, the only person you mentioned that has garnered any kind of major support at this time, outside of Iowa, is Gingrich and you and I would probably disagree on his level of sanity.

Every single one of those except Paul and Bachmann have lead national polls.